Rooney Rule Requirements

[Hapless Bills Fan]

24 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

Here's my take:  While there may be better choices than Dorsey, based on experience, Dorsey is at the head of the list for 1 main reason-Josh Allen, the most important player on the team, already has a relationship with Dorsey and Dorsey is Josh's top choice.  So, whether you like it or not, a franchise QB has a lot of power in today's NFL.  Just look at the messes in Houston & Green Bay because management did something the QB didn't like.  

 

So, the key is, does Dorsey want to stay with the Bills, or is he closer with Daboll and wants to go to the NYG? If he wants to be OC in Buffalo, the job is his. 

 

Well, couple things here, Albany:

1) Dorsey may be at the head of your list, but it doesn't follow that Dorsey is at the head of Beane and McDermott's list for 1 main reason - he really doesn't have a lot of experience other than as a QB coach.  Both McDermott and Beane worked with Dorsey in Carolina for 4 years as well as working with him here 3 years.  They know him well, and should have a really good idea what his strengths are, and what his gaps are.  It's entirely possible they don't feel Dorsey's gaps align with where they feel the offense needs develop, or that he's the right man to take them there.  Maybe they feel he's a great QB with a gift for designing passing plays but really doesn't have a clue how to design run plays that integrate seamlessly so as to create doubt in the defense's mind.

 

2) I "get it" that you and others are firmly in the camp "whatever Allen wants, Allen should get".  But step back a minute.  Allen is 25 and has been in the league 4 years.  By all reports, he's a helluva teammate who really loves his guys.  That doesn't mean he's got a deep knowledge of NFL offensive schemes at this point.  What Allen wants, may not be best - including for Allen.  And Allen knows this right now - Allen has said in pressers this season "I have a helluva lot to learn"

 

Beane and McDermott can not (figurately speaking) paste a giant poster of Allen on the wall of Beane's office and take the viewpoint "Whatever Josh Allen Wants is what's Best for the Franchise so That's What He Gets".  That's what Howie Roseman reportedly did, and it was a Disaster for both Wentz AND the Eagles.

 

Example of what I mean: Allen was quoted in 2019 saying to someone "people say we don't have enough talent at WR, they have no idea how good our guys really are!" about Brown and Beasley.  So if we gave Allen his choice, maybe we don't trade a first for Diggs?  But Beane knew we needed an upgrade at WR, someone who could set a new bar not just in his own play, but who could elevate the entire room.  So he did trade for Diggs, and 2020 is History.

 

Other things being equal between a potential OC that Allen already has a relationship with and would like to see in the job, vs a similarly qualified guy that Beane feels Allen would get along with, sure - take the known entity.

 

But that's not necessarily the best thing to do for the team, or (in the long term) for Allen.

 

14 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

Neglected to mention because it does not support candidate A:

Has three years experience in current offense system.

Has three years experience in working with current offense,

 

Specific experience is a factor which needs to be considered.

 

Sure it does, but it's a two-edged sword.  If Beane and McDermott want to see some change in the current offensive system, is the guy who has been in it for 3 years the best guy to make those changes?

 

Maybe. 

 

Or maybe not, especially if his experience is otherwise limited.

 

They need to talk to him, and talk to other guys, and then make up their minds.

 

14 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

The biggest problem is internal minority candidates can bypass all of the required competition other internal candidates cannot and this is hypocritical.

 

I have no idea what this sentence means.  Internal minority candidates do not meet the criteria of the Rooney Rule.  The candidates interviewed must be external to the organization.

[purple haze]

5 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Neglected to mention because it does not support candidate A:

 

Has three years experience in current offense system.

Has three years experience in working with current offense,

 

Specific experience is a factor which needs to be considered.

Do we know the Bills are keeping the exact same offensive system?   Do we know if Dorsey wants to add or subtract to/from Daboll’s system or implement something different altogether with his stamp on it?  What if the other candidates have run or been exposed to the same concepts the Bills have been running?  What if the Bills want to change schemes?  
 

Dorsey isn’t necessarily a layup.  If they keep him, cool.  But the other candidates might have system knowledge too.  They just haven’t used it in Buffalo.

 

 

[Albany,n.y.]

We now know how this turned out-It was always Dorsey as the choice & the others were just window dressing.  So in the end they were just wasting guys like Tee Martin's time.  Maybe they can get Tee to lateral to QB coach if Tierney goes to NYG.

[Albany,n.y.]

I think the Rooney Rule in its current state just ended today with the Flores lawsuit.  Teams will be afraid to conduct sham interviews for fear of being sued.   

[Dan Darragh]

So Brian Flores has blown the cover off of the Rooney Rule.  He says that the Rooney Rule just forces teams to conduct sham interviews with the obligatory black guy before hiring whoever they want.  (Leslie Frazier and Anthony Lynn have endured this over the years.)

 

I've been called a few bad names by people because I've been saying on these boards for some time that the Rooney Rule encourages tokenism and hurts the people it was intended to help.  Apparently Brian (the Miami Brian, not the Buffalo Brian) agrees with me.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

10 minutes ago, Dan Darragh said:

So Brian Flores has blown the cover off of the Rooney Rule.  He says that the Rooney Rule just forces teams to conduct sham interviews with the obligatory black guy before hiring whoever they want.  (Leslie Frazier and Anthony Lynn have endured this over the years.)

 

I've been called a few bad names by people because I've been saying on these boards for some time that the Rooney Rule encourages tokenism and hurts the people it was intended to help.  Apparently Brian (the Miami Brian, not the Buffalo Brian) agrees with me.

The Rooney rule worked for Flores though. He's already been hired as a head coach. The Rooney rule is supposed to get your foot in the door. Flores was a position coach. 

 

How about change the Rooney rule. Former NFL head coaches don't satisfy the Rooney rule. That's one way to fix it. 

Edited February 2, 2022 by Buffalo_Stampede

[Lfod]

It's simple to understand that the rule only give a person an interview and nothing is promised after that.

 

If you really want more hires then sweeten the deal with some incentives to make those hires and you might get more results. 

 

It may not feel like the right thing to do but you might get more results if there are added benefits into making hires you might not of been planning on doing. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

4 minutes ago, Lfod said:

It's simple to understand that the rule only give a person an interview and nothing is promised after that.

 

If you really want more hires then sweeten the deal with some incentives to make those hires and you might get more results. 

 

It may not feel like the right thing to do but you might get more results if there are added benefits into making hires you might not of been planning on doing. 

I like the idea of getting draft picks if your assistant coaches get hired for Head Coach jobs. I would add in picks if assistant coaches get a promotion. Meaning if a DB coach gets hired as a DC you get a pick.

 

I don't want to compensate teams hiring minority head coaches. I just don't like the look of that. But reward teams that build quality staffs that help minority coaches get promoted. 

 

Also the NFL has to work with FBS college football. There aren't enough black coordinators. 

[MrEpsYtown]

Ted Cottrell was the original Rooney Rule sham interview guy. I would be very curious to see what his thoughts are. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

3 minutes ago, MrEpsYtown said:

Ted Cottrell was the original Rooney Rule sham interview guy. I would be very curious to see what his thoughts are. 

He's talked a lot about it. He said his interview in 2000 with the Bills wasn't much of an interview.

 

 

[Magox]

I always thought the Rooney rule was a sham and truth be told very insulting for a lot of these minority coaches that have to go through this song and dance knowing that they were simply a manufactured tool to suffice the Rooney rule.

 

I was hesitant to bring it up in the past because the fault lines were apparent and it would just devolve into this basic argument where one side would be cast as racists for making their case and the other side as nonsensical.   But I do believe that this Flores court case will allow most people to reexamine the Rooney rule and understand that even though it was well-intentioned, that it wasn't the right solution.   

 

It's difficult to legislate or in this case create a rule to help create the change in having a more diverse coaching league, there clearly is something wrong in the vetting process considering that over half the NFL players are African Americans and that at this particular point less than 3% of the NFL teams have an African American coach.

 

Typically change like this is brought upon by society not rules.   

 

With all that said, we don't have all the facts but there may be a chance that Flores being sacked from the Dolphins had nothing to do with race and that the allegations against the Giants and Broncos may have not either.   It looks like Flores didn't want to play along with Ross's unsavory plans and that Ross didn't think he could trust him going forward.   The Broncos say they have all the receipts to prove what Flores says is false, whether that is true or not I suppose we'll find out.  And there are reports that the Giants satisfied the Rooney rule before they were set to interview Flores.

 

 

[krf139]

On 1/31/2022 at 1:51 PM, wppete said:

Just an awful rule. Can’t believe it’s still being used. IMHO. 

I get the point and intent but does kind of force teams to interview people based on race when perhaps they already have their guy. Not sure this moves the needle to solve the problem, but also don’t know what would work better 

[Lfod]

If I was a minority and I really thought the rule was a sham I wouldn't show up for the interviews. 

I never voted in my entire life because I felt there was no point to it. 

 

It must work enough for people to keep showing up or they are just fools. 

Edited February 2, 2022 by Lfod

[BullBuchanan]

6 hours ago, Magox said:

Typically change like this is brought upon by society not rules.  

 

And that change through society is typically brought on by rules that form as a catalyst. When you look at anything from marriage equality to cannabis legalization, it typically takes something to be formalized first before everyone realizes that it isn't so bad after all. Catalysts can happen outside of formal acceptance, but it's often what sets off the chain reaction. The Rooney Rule didn't get the first minority coach hired, it just provided a catalyst for it to happen more often.

While it hasn't been as successful as it could be, 3 of the 20 black head coaches in NFL history came in the 70 years prior to the rule while the remaining group came int he last 20 years. That's to say nothing of the much more prevalent assistant roles. Would Byron Leftwich hold the same role 30 years ago?

Edited February 2, 2022 by BullBuchanan

[Ramza86]

The idea of the rule is good intentioned. It does give Minority coaches a shot to crush an interview and sway a GM.

 

Giants knew they wanted Daboll. They needed someone to work with Daniel Jones and give the Giants clarity on Jones' future with the team.

 

You think the Giants want another Fitz/Tua headache on their hands with Flores?

 

 

[Nitro]

7 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

He's talked a lot about it. He said his interview in 2000 with the Bills wasn't much of an interview.

 

 

Ted would have been a far better HC than Gregg Williams.  What a dirt bag he is. 

[Magox]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

And that change through society is typically brought on by rules that form as a catalyst. When you look at anything from marriage equality to cannabis legalization, it typically takes something to be formalized first before everyone realizes that it isn't so bad after all. Catalysts can happen outside of formal acceptance, but it's often what sets off the chain reaction. The Rooney Rule didn't get the first minority coach hired, it just provided a catalyst for it to happen more often.

While it hasn't been as successful as it could be, 3 of the 20 black head coaches in NFL history came in the 70 years prior to the rule while the remaining group came int he last 20 years. That's to say nothing of the much more prevalent assistant roles. Would Byron Leftwich hold the same role 30 years ago?

 

I hear what you are saying but I do not agree with it.

 

Legislation or rule making don't serve as catalysts to social change but rather people and movements do.

 

The Rooney Rule has been around for quite some time and we still only have 1 black head coach.  That's proof in itself.  

 

Sometimes stereotypes and prejudices take a while to overcome, specially for the older Boomers (no offense fellas) who happen to make up most of the owners.  It will happen, it's just a matter of time before a more proportionate percentage of minority coaches are in place.

 

And the cost of the Rooney rule to what Black head coaches have to go through, knowing that often times it's just a sham of a process.  Essentially the rule in 98% of the times is not a genuine interview but rather a tool to satisfy this rule.   I suppose if I were in that position, on one hand you gotta go, you have to play ball and see what happens but deep down I would find it somewhat humiliating knowing that I was just being interviewed for the Rooney rule.

 

It's time to end this rule and move on to something better.

[billsfan1959]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

And that change through society is typically brought on by rules that form as a catalyst. When you look at anything from marriage equality to cannabis legalization, it typically takes something to be formalized first before everyone realizes that it isn't so bad after all. Catalysts can happen outside of formal acceptance, but it's often what sets off the chain reaction. The Rooney Rule didn't get the first minority coach hired, it just provided a catalyst for it to happen more often.

While it hasn't been as successful as it could be, 3 of the 20 black head coaches in NFL history came in the 70 years prior to the rule while the remaining group came int he last 20 years. That's to say nothing of the much more prevalent assistant roles. Would Byron Leftwich hold the same role 30 years ago?

 

Rules and legislation in important social issues are rarely the catalyst for change, but rather the culmination of, or enacted in concert with, social forces. Typically, those social forces are gradual, often growing over several generations or more, because, whether we like it or not, it often takes generations to change belief systems.

 

Trying to legislate social changes quickly, while done with the best intentions, often causes more social and psychological harm than good. I'm not arguing against them. I'm just saying any measures put in place from organizational rules to legislation should be thought through very carefully. Sometimes it is a good thing and sometimes it is not.

 

I would argue that Byron Leftwich holding the position he holds now has far less to do with the Rooney Rule (which I am not entirely against) than with gradual changes in belief structures within our society.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 2/1/2022 at 12:22 PM, Albany,n.y. said:

We now know how this turned out-It was always Dorsey as the choice & the others were just window dressing.  So in the end they were just wasting guys like Tee Martin's time.  Maybe they can get Tee to lateral to QB coach if Tierney goes to NYG.

 

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't see it that way.

 

If it's true as has been tweeted by local media, that Dorsey was being considered as OC by 6 different teams - it was not a "foregone conclusion" that he would sign with the Bills even if he was their leading candidate.

 

I mean we all see it that way  in hindsight, and also being fans we think "who would want to OC for another team when you could be OC for Josh Allen?!!!!!" but every guy has his own criteria which we don't know.

 

Anyway, after I researched them a bit  both Tee Martin and Edgar Bennett sound like interesting candidates with a lot of relevant experience; I hope the fact that they were asked to interview by a winning organization with a top QB will lead to them being interviewed elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Ramza86 said:

The idea of the rule is good intentioned. It does give Minority coaches a shot to crush an interview and sway a GM.

 

Giants knew they wanted Daboll. They needed someone to work with Daniel Jones and give the Giants clarity on Jones' future with the team.

 

You think the Giants want another Fitz/Tua headache on their hands with Flores?

 

Ha.  Well, yeah, actually - I do.

 

I think there was a bit too much "buzz" about Flores to the Giants for it to be without foundation.  I think someone in the Giants organization was impressed by what Flores did with the Dolphins despite the unsettled QB situation, and thought he would be a great HC hire (maybe Mara?)

 

I also think once they decided to hire the GM first, assuming the GM stipulated for reasonable GM things, it became a foregone conclusion that "Whoever Schoen wants, Schoen gets" and his first choice wasn't Flores.

 

I think one reason Flores is so very angry right now is that he feels bait-n-switched - he thought he was a serious candidate, and he was, until he wasn't.

[Ramza86]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Ha.  Well, yeah, actually - I do.

 

I think there was a bit too much "buzz" about Flores to the Giants for it to be without foundation.  I think someone in the Giants organization was impressed by what Flores did with the Dolphins despite the unsettled QB situation, and thought he would be a great HC hire (maybe Mara?)

 

I also think once they decided to hire the GM first, assuming the GM stipulated for reasonable GM things, it became a foregone conclusion that "Whoever Schoen wants, Schoen gets" and his first choice wasn't Flores.

 

I think one reason Flores is so very angry right now is that he feels bait-n-switched - he thought he was a serious candidate, and he was, until he wasn't.

 

Sure it could be a case where GM got the freedom to get his HC. So Schoen got the guy he wanted. 

 

This is where the Rooney rule makes minorities even more frustrated. The NFL forced the Giants to "check the box" for the rule.

 

The NFL needs to come up with something better than the current rule.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 minutes ago, Ramza86 said:

 

Sure it could be a case where GM got the freedom to get his HC. So Schoen got the guy he wanted. 

 

This is where the Rooney rule makes minorities even more frustrated. The NFL forced the Giants to "check the box" for the rule.

 

The NFL needs to come up with something better than the current rule.

 

On that last, I have no argument.  In fact, I tend to think all POV would probably agree.

[Albany,n.y.]

54 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Ha.  Well, yeah, actually - I do.

 

I think there was a bit too much "buzz" about Flores to the Giants for it to be without foundation.  I think someone in the Giants organization was impressed by what Flores did with the Dolphins despite the unsettled QB situation, and thought he would be a great HC hire (maybe Mara?)

 

I also think once they decided to hire the GM first, assuming the GM stipulated for reasonable GM things, it became a foregone conclusion that "Whoever Schoen wants, Schoen gets" and his first choice wasn't Flores.

 

I think one reason Flores is so very angry right now is that he feels bait-n-switched - he thought he was a serious candidate, and he was, until he wasn't.

From what I heard in the NY media, Flores was the top choice by one of the owners but once they hired Schoen he was free to hire who he wanted.  Considering where Schoen came from the logical conclusion was either Daboll or Frazier. 

Here's something to consider.  After Schoen was hired Dan Quinn, seeing the writing on the wall cancelled his interview with the Giants.  IMO, Flores could have came to the same conclusion & also cancelled his interview.  In fact, based on the Belichick texts, he could have easily reached the same conclusion as Quinn, but he went on with the interview & then went scorched earth when he didn't get the job.  

Edited February 2, 2022 by Albany,n.y.

[billsfan1959]

22 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Anyway, after I researched them a bit  both Tee Martin and Edgar Bennett sound like interesting candidates with a lot of relevant experience; I hope the fact that they were asked to interview by a winning organization with a top QB will lead to them being interviewed elsewhere.

 

 

I am not opposed to the Rooney Rule for this very reason. It simply requires that teams include minority candidates in their processes for hiring head coaches and and those in management positions. I would like to think that, more often than not, in today's NFL, minority candidates are going to get legitimate consideration for such positions and the Rooney Rule is needed far less than when it was first enacted. However, there are going to be times when the candidates being seriously considered as the best fit (philosophically and otherwise) are not minorities. There is nothing wrong or nefarious in most instances like that. While many look at the Rooney Rule in these instances as creating "sham" interviews, I look at it as giving young minority coaches valuable interview experience and exposure. 

[BullBuchanan]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

The Rooney Rule has been around for quite some time and we still only have 1 black head coach.  That's proof in itself.  

 

I mean that's extremely disingenuous. We currently have 1 black head coach, but we have at least 3 minority coaches who are part of the Rooney rule (Saleh, Rivera) and we've had 5x more black head coaches in the 20 years Since the Rooney rule than the 70 years that preceded it. It took until 1989 for Art Shell to be the first black coach - 33 years ago. That's insane. From then until the Rooney rule was enacted 13 years later there were a total of 3.

[BullBuchanan]

1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Rules and legislation in important social issues are rarely the catalyst for change, but rather the culmination of, or enacted in concert with, social forces. Typically, those social forces are gradual, often growing over several generations or more, because, whether we like it or not, it often takes generations to change belief systems.

 

Trying to legislate social changes quickly, while done with the best intentions, often causes more social and psychological harm than good. I'm not arguing against them. I'm just saying any measures put in place from organizational rules to legislation should be thought through very carefully. Sometimes it is a good thing and sometimes it is not.

 

I would argue that Byron Leftwich holding the position he holds now has far less to do with the Rooney Rule (which I am not entirely against) than with gradual changes in belief structures within our society.

And what changes those belief structures?

Without legislation, Schools would have remained segregated (Brown vs The Board of Education), and  Rosa Parks would have been found guilty. Are we going to say that was result of society pushing for those changes? That same society that was part of the Little Rock 9 two years later, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X a few years later.

When Brown vs The Board of education was passed, 60% of those surveyed by Gallup supported the ruling - this is less than current support for universal healthcare, tuition-free college, and legalization of cannabis at the federal level. Maybe you can argue that counts as support by society, but when the opposition to support brings serious consequences to those that do, I'd argue it's legal structure that gives social movements the freedom to advance their cause further. Of course it takes two to tango. If you don't have some social support behind social policy, you'll have problems. I'm not suggesting that just because you make something a policy that everyone will subscribe to it immediately, but without that framework, it becomes much harder for progress to me made.

So, there is historical precedent and current statistics that support this. On the other side of the argument it seems that the thought is "well, people are just going to fake it anyway" (when the argument comes with the best of intentions - there are far worse).

[billsfan1959]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

And what changes those belief structures?

Without legislation, Schools would have remained segregated (Brown vs The Board of Education), and  Rosa Parks would have been found guilty. Are we going to say that was result of society pushing for those changes? That same society that was part of the Little Rock 9 two years later, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X a few years later.

When Brown vs The Board of education was passed, 60% of those surveyed by Gallup supported the ruling - this is less than current support for universal healthcare, tuition-free college, and legalization of cannabis at the federal level. Maybe you can argue that counts as support by society, but when the opposition to support brings serious consequences to those that do, I'd argue it's legal structure that gives social movements the freedom to advance their cause further. Of course it takes two to tango. If you don't have some social support behind social policy, you'll have problems. I'm not suggesting that just because you make something a policy that everyone will subscribe to it immediately, but without that framework, it becomes much harder for progress to me made.

So, there is historical precedent and current statistics that support this. On the other side of the argument it seems that the thought is "well, people are just going to fake it anyway" (when the argument comes with the best of intentions - there are far worse).

 

Don't misunderstand my stance. I am not opposed to legislation or organizational rules. What I was saying is that they rarely are the catalyst for change in belief systems or social change, but more often a result of social forces. Brown v Board of Education is actually a good example of what I mean. There was already changing belief systems in a large percentage of the population, resulting in a strong social movement against segregation (leading to open encouragement and attempts by black parents to enroll their children in all white schools) before lawsuit was ever filed and originally ruled on in District Court. If there had been no shift in belief systems there wouldn't have been support for what was taking place all over the south prior to the lawsuits, there wouldn't have been enough support in the judiciary and government bodies to support the movement with legal rulings and subsequent legislation, and the polls wouldn't have reflected 60%+ approval of the ruling. At some point they worked hand in hand; however, the swelling of a social movement and support for the movement came before any legal rulings and legislation. 

 

As I said, I am not opposed to legislation in the area of racism. There certainly is a history of legislation beneficial to civil rights and the fight against racism. There is also a history of well meaning legislation that has had disastrous effects primarily for the very people the legislation was intended to help.